Defending the Balance: How Courts Check Executive Power—From Madison to Trump
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, articulating the Founders’ vision of a government where power is divided to prevent tyranny. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary”—a reminder that no branch, especially the executive, should wield unchecked authority. The framers, fresh from a revolution against a king, designed a system where the judiciary and Congress would serve as critical checks on presidential overreach.
The Founders’ Blueprint: Checks, Balances, and “Opposite Interests”
Madison and Alexander Hamilton feared concentrated power. In Federalist No. 51, Madison argued that separating powers among three branches would ensure “justice is the end of government”. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 70, defended a strong executive but stressed that its energy must be “constrained within the limits of the Constitution”. Their message was clear: The president is not a monarch.
How the Supreme Court Has Enforced Limits on Presidential Power
Over centuries, the Supreme Court has defined the boundaries of executive authority, even in areas like foreign affairs where presidents traditionally receive deference. Key cases include:
Table of key Supreme Court cases of the limits of executive power
These rulings underscore a consistent principle in American democracy that generations of Americans held: no one—not even the president—is above the law, even in crises. Yet, in the summer of 2024, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States introduced a profound shift. The Court held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for their “core constitutional acts” and broad protections for other official actions. This means that, for certain actions, the president is now shielded from criminal prosecution—even if those actions might violate the law.
This historic ruling places an asterisk on the famous maxim that “no one is above the law.” It grants the executive branch new latitude and makes the role of Congress, the courts, and the public in holding leaders accountable more crucial than ever. As Justice Sotomayor warned in her dissent, “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
The Trump Administration’s Assault on Judicial Checks
The Trump administration has repeatedly tested the boundaries of the courts’ authority over the executive branch, flouting court orders and attacking judicial authority:
Defying Injunctions: After federal judges blocked Trump’s 2025 executive order freezing federal funds, the administration initially ignored the rulings, claiming they were “ambiguous”. A Rhode Island judge condemned this as a “violation of the rule of law”.
Threatening Judges: Trump and Vice President JD Vance have labeled judges “disgraceful” and called for impeachment of those who rule against them, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to defend judicial independence.
Undermining Due Process: The administration has deported asylum seekers to El Salvador in defiance of court orders, stripping individuals of legal recourse.
These actions reflect a broader pattern: asserting unilateral executive power while dismissing the judiciary’s role as a coequal branch.
Why This Matters: A Constitutional Crisis in the Making
When presidents ignore courts, they erode the Founders’ safeguards. As Justice Robert Jackson warned in Youngstown, “emergency powers… tend to kindle emergencies”. The Trump administration’s defiance risks normalizing lawlessness, enabling future executives to bypass checks entirely.
Federal judges have tools to enforce compliance—fines, contempt charges, and injunctions—but these rely on executive cooperation. If the administration continues to defy courts, it could trigger a constitutional crisis, destabilizing the balance that has preserved democracy for 250 years.
Conclusion: Defending Checks and Balances Is Nonpartisan
The League of Women Voters of Bloomington stands with Madison’s vision: “Justice is the end of government.” Condemning executive overreach isn’t partisan—it’s patriotic. From Truman to Trump, courts have safeguarded liberty by holding presidents accountable. In today’s polarized climate, protecting this balance is more urgent than ever.
“The accumulation of all powers… in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
—James Madison, Federalist No. 47
Empowering Voters. Defending Democracy.
League of Women Voters of Bloomington, MN
